Timeline for Is burying human waste always the lowest-impact solution?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2014 at 4:12 | comment | added | Mark | Much of Rainier is glaciated, and decomposition times on the glaciers are measured in centuries to millennia. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 0:06 | comment | added | nhinkle | @BenCrowell it's some of both. At higher elevations, especially if there isn't much plant growth, there just isn't much of anything to decompose the waste. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 0:05 | history | edited | nhinkle | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 177 characters in body
|
| Aug 6, 2014 at 23:59 | comment | added | user2169 | I don't think the issue is altitude, I think the issue is overuse. Rainier and Whitney are both overused areas. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 22:17 | comment | added | Mark | Not only is it just in areas where stuff doesn't decompose naturally -- in highly trafficked areas like the Mt. Whitney zone in California, nature just can't keep up with the number of people 'passing through' while passing through - meaning 'stuff' gets deposited faster than nature can break it down. I agree with nhinkle - LNT talks about how to dig catholes, etc, but I'd say the truest way to literally "leave no trace" is to pack it out. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 20:16 | comment | added | gerrit | Many animals leave their feces unexposed though. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 18:20 | comment | added | nhinkle | @gerrit I would say that under no circumstances should you leave solid waste exposed. An animal might eat it, somebody might step in it, etc. It might or might not be better for the vegetation, but it's never OK to just leave fecal matter on the ground exposed. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 17:44 | comment | added | gerrit | My thought was whether the impact of damaging vegetation by burying may or may not be worse than the impact of leaving poo unburied at the surface. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 17:23 | history | answered | nhinkle | CC BY-SA 3.0 |